Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39087151›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Selection Bias Risk in Randomized Controlled Trials Rated as Low Bias Using Risk of Bias, Version 2 (RoB2) Tool.

Steffen Mickenautsch, Veerasamy Yengopal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Steffen MickenautschFaculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, ZAF.
Veerasamy YengopalFaculty of Dentistry, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, ZAF.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our study aimed to establish the risk of selection bias in randomized controlled trials (RCT) that were overall rated as having "low bias" risk according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias, version 2 (RoB 2) tool. A systematic literature search of current systematic reviews of RCTs was conducted. From the identified reviews, RCTs with overall "high bias" and "low bias" RoB 2 risk ratings were extracted. All RCTs were statistically tested for selection bias risk. From the test results, true positive, true negative, false positive, or false negative ratings were established, and the false omission rate (FOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was computed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by computing the negative likelihood ratio (-LR) concerning RoB 2 domain 1 ratings: bias arising from the randomization process. A total of 1070 published RCTs (median publication year: 2018; interquartile range: 2013-2020) were identified and tested. We found that 7.61% of all "low bias" (RoB 2)-rated RCTs were of high selection bias risk (FOR 7.61%; 95% CI: 6.31%-9.14%) and that the likelihood for high selection bias risk in "low bias" (RoB 2 domain 1)-rated RCTs was 6% higher than that for low selection bias risk (-LR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15). These findings raise issues about the validity of "low bias" risk ratings using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool as well as about the validity of some of the results from recently published RCTs. Our results also suggest that the likelihood of a "low bias" risk-rated body of clinical evidence being actually bias-free is low, and that generalization based on a limited, pre-specified set of appraisal criteria may not justify a high level of confidence that such evidence reflects the true treatment effect.

Indexed as

bias testingclinical triali2risk of bias 2 toolselection biassystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39087151
PMCPMC11290317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.